Page 5 of 69 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 5

  1. #41
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,985
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by jimhensen View Post
    You can't compare satiety by macronutrient alone. You can make generalizations like "fat is more filling than carbs" but a HUGE plate of vegetables is a lot more filling than a couple spoonfuls of oil. Some foods are more filling than others. The ratio of macronutrients have a lot to do with it, but you can't make generalizations about the satiety of macronutrients.
    I wasn't making an argument one way or the other about the matter, but rather proposing that it was a potentially interesting topic that didn't belong in this thread.

  2. #42
    primal pete's Avatar
    primal pete is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    You can eat 2000 calories and gain weight if you burn 1000 calories in the same time period, and you can eat 4000 calories and lose weight if you burn 5000 calories in the same time period. Nobody's disputing the basic laws of physics. That's precisely my point. What's being disputed is whether you can change one side of the equation without affecting the other. And you can't.
    What exactly are you arguing about here then? That's exactly what the point of the OP is - that for one reason or another, stalled weight loss is ultimately a result of no calorie deficit. Yes, it is entirely possible that someone might have a legitimate hormonal issue that causes their energy levels to be terrible, hence they don't burn a lot of calories on a daily basis. However, for 99% of people that is NOT THE CASE. That's what the point of the thread is - that for most of us who want to make a change and lose the weight, it's just a simple matter of diligence, will power, and perhaps dealing with the slight discomfort of a calorie deficit.

    Yes, eating primal will make it much easier to be more satisfied with eating less

    Yes, eating primal will help normalize your biochemistry and give you more energy to burn more calories

    No one here is denying those truths

    And yes, you probably don't have some obscure medical condition if you recklessly eat primal food until you're stuffed, then don't lose weight, you just need to eat less and exercise some self control. TRY THAT FIRST, before you self diagnose yourself with a thyroid disorder or something like that, because the former is all that needs a change. Good old fashioned will power and work ethic are underrated here.

    And it's true, even in the alternative diet market, people will try and convince you that your weight loss is a result of some hormone or food, explaining why it's not your fault, and you can't do anything about it until you read their book for $39.95 on amazon. The paleo market isn't immune from sheisters.
    Last edited by primal pete; 07-25-2012 at 02:34 PM.

  3. #43
    Marnee's Avatar
    Marnee is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand/ Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    125
    The problem isn't calories in the sense that this is shorthand for the Law of Conservation of Energy. The problem is with the bomb calorimeter model of human metabolism. Not every metabolic process is oxidative and no oxidative process burns molecules down to ash. But this is what happens in a bomb calorimeter.

    Consider that the heat output of incinerating protein is 7 Cals / gram. But humans do not burn protein directly. We first convert it to amino acids which are then converted to glucose which then is used to produce ATP which is used as energy in mitochondria.

    Also consider that although the ratio of heat output of glucose to fat is 9:4 Cals/gram, fat produces many times more ATP than glucose (see Wikipedia entry on ATP). Many times. The ratio of 9:4 is a little more than 2. Is this "many times" more? I dunno for sure but I highly doubt it.

    Fat is used for far more processes than energy, but heat output/ oxidation is all that is assessed. Why? I think this is a very bad proxy.

    These are the most obviously glaring problems with the bomb calorimeter model, aka "calories count."

    As far as I can tell there is not a 1:1 relationship between the heat output of a bomb calorimeter and human metabolic rate.

    Until this is resolved, approximating your "Calorie needs" and then counting them in your food is useless as anything other than a (kinda bad) proxy for quantifying and understanding how much one eats.

    I think mindfulness from simply logging your food, and some careful, systematic restriction, is far more useful.

  4. #44
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    You can eat 2000 calories and gain weight if you burn 1000 calories in the same time period, and you can eat 4000 calories and lose weight if you burn 5000 calories in the same time period. Nobody's disputing the basic laws of physics. That's precisely my point. What's being disputed is whether you can change one side of the equation without affecting the other. And you can't.
    But who is actually only burning 1000 cals a day? An small elderly woman maybe.

  5. #45
    Comma's Avatar
    Comma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    459
    A small elderly woman here, would just like to say that between this and Choco's cooking, he can marry me. Hehe.

  6. #46
    cookiemonster's Avatar
    cookiemonster is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    38
    I like Gary Taubes and alot of his takes on nutrition, but I don't believe what he says is Hammurabi's Code posted on a public stela either.
    Last edited by cookiemonster; 07-25-2012 at 05:09 PM.

  7. #47
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,425
    The article makes the point a calorie is a calorie. You can loose weight eating real food or eating twinkies.
    One point the author glossed over is if you are eat the same quantity of quality calories vs junk calories IMO you will loose weight faster eating the quality calories because your body has the nutrients it needs to function at peak levels.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  8. #48
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,985
    Quote Originally Posted by jimhensen View Post
    But who is actually only burning 1000 cals a day? An small elderly woman maybe.
    Maybe somebody with severe metabolic dysregulation. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by primal pete
    What exactly are you arguing about here then? That's exactly what the point of the OP is - that for one reason or another, stalled weight loss is ultimately a result of no calorie deficit
    Did you read my post or the linked article at all? I'm simply pointing out that the OP's article is hanging a straw man. Nobody (worth arguing with at least) is claiming that the laws of thermodynamics are somehow violated by human metabolism.

    I am also offering the caveat that the type of calories in can affect the quantity of calories out and the quantity of calories out can affect (yes, by affecting appetite and ultimately a behavior) calories in.

  9. #49
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    The article makes the point a calorie is a calorie. You can loose weight eating real food or eating twinkies.
    One point the author glossed over is if you are eat the same quantity of quality calories vs junk calories IMO you will loose weight faster eating the quality calories because your body has the nutrients it needs to function at peak levels.
    Which is where satiety comes into play--when your nutritional needs are satisfied, you're less likely to have cravings or seek out more food to fulfill those needs. Being well nourished makes a big difference (and of course will also affect activity levels, healing, sleep, and other factors too).
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  10. #50
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,665
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Maybe somebody with severe metabolic dysregulation. What's your point?

    Did you read my post or the linked article at all? I'm simply pointing out that the OP's article is hanging a straw man......
    Thats kinda his MO. Why I don't bother. Its an inflammatory opener with disregard to the real issue. Moving on (least I am)....

Page 5 of 69 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •